Though exit polling never inquires about gun ownership, it represents one of the widest electoral margins of all, not just at the state level but also at the level of individual voters. About the only thing wider is the Democrat margin among non-whites. The gun chasm is even larger among whites, with Trump winning 76%-24% among white gun owners.

Gun ownership isn't merely a proxy for whiteness. Most whites don't own guns. What it is more precisely is a strong proxy for badwhiteness. The quips about what happens if the Cold Civil War among whites turns hot are too easy.

How convenient it would be for the gun grabbers if the black and white ownership rates were reversed. That blacks are only half as likely to own guns as whites are but are ten times as likely to murder people with them is... narratively problematic. It's the cause of each side perpetually talking past the other. As is the case with so many other things, anti-scientific race denialism makes us stupid.

30 comments:

For a long time, my position on guns has been: since pro-gun rightists support my causes, I will support them on theirs. (Compare them with cucks who not only oppose my priorities, but actively try to sabotage them whenever there's a chance they can be realized through policy changes.) I haven't felt much attachment to guns, and admittedly, I would rather live in a Scandinavian country with tough gun control laws than a diverse one with guns abound.

I have also scoffed at the argument that guns are needed to protect our rights from a tyrannical government. Simply put, there's no way anyone with some guns could take on the US military or security agencies. When Ben Carson said that guns could've protected Jews in Europe, I joked with my friends, "Yes, a few Glocks and hunting rifles would've beaten back the Wehrmacht!"

But now I understand that it's not really from the security agencies that having guns will protect us: it's from BLM mobs, antifa, etc. If your neighborhood is about to get sacked from a BLM riot, being armed means you can deter and fend then off. If antifa comes after you, the dispute will end when you have a gun.

Furthermore, we've seen rape gangs on England and violent mobs in Sweden, and the police in those countries is actively pulling for the invaders. I'm sorry but if a rape gang is in your community and the police are aiding and abetting them, then you and your neighbors being armed means you can keep yourselves safe.

(I don't suppose vigilantism when there's a legitimate police force, but when the police are letting invaders rape your daughters, then it's time to band together with your friends and neighbors and mete out the severest punishment.)

There might be downsides to mass and legal gun ownership in a country, but we're seeing what happens when a government decides to not enforce the law and protect its own citizens. Ultimately, communities should be able to defend themselves on their own if state authorities either formally collapse, or converge on a malevolent agenda to destroy their own peoples.

As such, I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment and appreciate the wisdom of its long-term supporters.

While the military could win any engagement with the USA redneck brigade, they would have to use expensive and limited assets. The high cost of buying off locals or fighting them is what widespread firearms ownership and competence grants to civil society. The gun owner class, whatever it is, must have a stake in society. Whites know this instinctively if not intellectually.

I often bring up the NRA as an example of how to engage in outsider politics. The ruling class would like nothing more than to institute a gun ban. This cuts across ideological and partisan lines. Yet, they have not been able to make any headway for decades. The last time the gun grabbers had success was the mid-80's and that blew up in their face.

The NRA engages the issue by constantly whipping support for their issues and ignoring partisan and ideological constructs. If a candidate is a Marxist lesbian, but good on guns, they get NRA support. If Rand Paul ever supported gun grabbing, the NRA would support his challenger. The NRA wins because they stand outside the prevailing political framework.

That chart is showing legal guns, surely. I'd expect gun ownership rates among the more murderous segments to be a good deal higher than reported.

I am taken aback by the white ownership rates, actually. I feel like some sort of freak in my area for only owning a single gun, which I maintain for home defense; I'm not much of a gun-for-fun type. I can't think of anyone in my neighborhood who doesn't own a gun, and we're not exactly rural.

Carson isn't wrong about now, though. It's inconceivable (unless we're in some post-collapse nightmare) that the USG would forcibly try to confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns currently in private hands in the US. The molon labe sentiment might be silly bravado, but it's still good to get people thinking about the dynamics of it. My "drop the mic" move whenever gun grabbing comes up is a picture taken just down the road from Z-Man's house. If they won't protect their own stuff, they sure as hell can't be relied on to protect yours.

Joe,

Exactly. And anti-whites know it, too, which is why they come after guns so hard despite the fact that attempt after attempt proves futile. It's psychological warfare at least as much as it is logistical preparation for actual warfare against the redneck brigades.

Z-Man,

Exactly right. It was a big disappointment in 2016 when the heads of organizations I respect like Mark Krikorian at CIS took anti-Trump stances for the same aesthetic/personal reasons that people like Charles Murray did. We definitely can learn a lot from the NRA.

Kipling,

It doesn't ask about legality. The total figure (25%) matches up pretty well with what the GSS--which also doesn't inquire about legality, just whether or not a firearm is in the home--shows (32%). The 7-point dip could be attributable to some apprehension among survey responses since this was during the time when the Florida school shooting was fresh.

The strategy for the gun banners consists of a short-run and long-run variant. In the short-run they hope for more massacres, especially if they are of a preferential group. Obviously people will tend to speculate about conspiracies here. In the long-run they wait for the generational eclipse and demographic collapse of whites, allowing bans to be passed legislatively that will never be overturned. All those 3%er Boomers with AR-15s will be for naught if they aren't used before death or senility, unless the inheriting Millennial whites suddenly turn right-wing once they have kids (recall that one-third of Millenials will probably never marry)

It might be me, but despite Reihan's supposed concern, I still see anything from Cuck inc. to be tone deaf. At what point will one of them be financially secure enough to state the blatant truth of "immigration moratorium now" and "you don't solve poverty by importing it"

AE - what I mean is that is it the guns themselves causing them to vote gop or is it other factors. I mean guns qua guns probably is part of it, but it seems like you have a lot of (in the words of jayman) confounding stuff - religiosity maybe being one of them (of course i could be wrong).

@Z - isn't most of the nra's success more coincidental in that republicans have controlled more state legislatures than they have since the 20s. Also, the fact that a lot of pro-gun democrats have lost reelection have caused many remaining dems to say fuck it.

1) Guns stand out as the issue where the American Right has been successful over the past 50 years. This is not merely because it is easier now to buy a gun in almost every state than it was in 1970, but because America really stands out like a sore thumb. European Rightists, even far Rightists, literally think you guys are nuts. I remember once asking Nigel Farage a question at a Hayek Society meeting back when I was Rothbardian, I think his exact words were 'obviously we don't want a situation like America'.

2) Jews are more united on the gun issue than any other. This is because the orthodox Jews and wannabe Likudniks who vote Republican are very far removed from gun culture. There's also a definite tendency for Jewish Republicans to take anti-gun stances to prove they are 'independent thinkers' rather than 'lockstep Republicans'.

3 slightly less obvious implications.

1) Clearly with the right organisational setup (not just the NSA. but also the Federalist Society), the Right can win on individual issues, not just legislatively, but in long-term moulding of public opinion. Whether this invalidates Moldbuggian analysis of the inevitable leftward drift of democracies or just requires a modification is up for debate.

2) Jews are obviously very important in the American power structure, but not qua Jews. The relative lenity of the Jewish community or Jewish organisations appears to have no clear correlation with how things turn out.

3) It would appear that where the Right can win it does so by appealing to liberal premises. The only issue where the Right has been close to as successful has been abortion, which has also been framed as a rights issue. This leads to the Right adopting obviously retarded conclusions, such as 'feral blacks should be allowed to own guns' and 'whackjobs on psychotropic medication should be allowed to own guns'. It also leads to them denying obvious reality, namely that school shootings and other crimes of nuttiness are made easier by easier access to guns (this being quite a separate issue from the gun-crime relationship, where the Right wing position is broadly correct.

Finally, a question. What accounts for the remarkable unity of opinion among the American Right on guns. It's easy enough to find people who endorse public healthcare, unilateral disarmament, protectionism, and other heresies against lame stream conservatism, but on this issue you all sound exactly like Glenn Beck. Are you familiar with the general attitude of Identitarians to this issue. Have you pondered the obvious reality that Jefferson didn't believe his slaves had a right to own guns so they could shoot him and run away, or that he envisaged the American Republic as being free from large urban environments (where gun ownership is more problematic) in perpetuity?

Ag is such a worthless industry. These morons think only in the short term, not in the 100-year terms realizing that that cheap labor brought in today will be demanding "land reform" in three generations.

" @Z - isn't most of the nra's success more coincidental in that republicans have controlled more state legislatures than they have since the 20s. Also, the fact that a lot of pro-gun democrats have lost reelection have caused many remaining dems to say fuck it."

Dude, the GOP sticks up for their donor's ability to make money. On average the GOP does not give one rat's ass about the well being of proles, white or otherwise.

The NRA primarily exists to suck off armaments makers. If that's good for proles that's entirely incidental to the GOP pleasing the corporate masters and lobbyists of an important industry (armaments).

Neither party right now seems to even be interested in making the full transition to a new New Deal type era, in which elites knock off the bullshit and actually start to care about most people. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming that the average Republican elite has populist principles that extend far beyond their bank account. If the arms makers folded over night, the NRA would wither away (it's lobbyists would whore themselves out to a different industry) and so too would the GOP lose interest in defending gun ownership.

It's incumbent on Boomers and X-ers to ferociously renounce the temptation to gain status and wealth with no consideration for it's impact on the masses. We must begin making judgements based on deeds, not vacuous totems of status.

The NRA is largely indistinguishable from the rest of Cuck Inc, just look at who is on the board of directors (Norquist, etc). Their power traditionally came from Blue Dog Dems (Harry Reid) that moderated the demands of the urban liberals. They also were much better at voter turnout, and getting members to write to their Congressman. In the post-2010 era this has disappeared, to the long-term detriment of gun ownership. I'm not up-to-date on NRA finances, but they are routinely shilling for more members and increased donations, the gun industry is susceptible to boom-bust cycles, the only companies that don't fail are the ones with government and foreign contracts.

The wider public is sympathetic to rural hunters, and surprisingly towards concealed carry. This is a sentiment of utilitarian ends, rather than an abstract moral principle about limiting state power. When it comes to anything else, the public is just as prohibitionist as the average Australian. The average gun rights activist doesn't seem to understand why certain segments of the culture need to be suppressed (bump firing, mall ninja, rich white Trump brothers hunting in Africa) which appear as callous examples of conspicuous consumption to normies.

The right is locked into this "silent majority" paradigm which is 50 years out of date, the reality is that the right is an embattled and despised minority whose sentiments are closeted in most countries and criminalized in an increasing number.

I regard the actual success of the Right in the gun debate as the "Final argument of the Kings". An accelerationist approach would cheer on Commissar Kamala imposing confiscation on Jan 20, 2021, the best chance for partition.

Yeah, it clearly correlates with a lot of the other things that also correlate with voting Republican--attending church, IDing politically as "conservative", etc.

Gabriel M,

Best guess is because, broadly, it's so blatantly obvious that restrictive gun laws don't prevent criminals (blacks) from getting a hold of guns. Something like 90%+ of gun crime in the US is committed by people illegally in possession of the firearm they use to commit said crime.

Could it also have something in common with the right--many readers here excepted, exceptions to the general rule--in the US also being uniquely religious compared to the relatively secular right in Europe? Iow, guns, like God, are tradcon in the most fundamental sense--they are passed down from father to son. It's an American tradition.

That said, how surprising would it be if support for gun rights went up among the European right? White Americans have had to deal with large numbers of blacks for centuries. It's something new for our European cousins.

IHTG/Anon,

In the end, we're all dead--as dead as California's Republican party. There is nothing conservative about these people.

Since we're deep in libertarian territory here, what about the public choice problem? Most people don't get abortions and find the practice awful, yet abortion is almost on demand in most of the country. Most people don't use Squatemalan peons washing dishes and pushing dust mops, but the CoC gets its peons. Most people oppose farm subsidies, yet agribusiness gets its subsidies. Most people want some sort of restrictions on gun ownership, yet in most states the restrictions are laughably minimal.

The assassination of Chris Hani was the key event that created the mythology around Nelson Mandela; I can only imagine that if a similar event was to befall a Muslim pol in the West that it would end just as bad for us.

Terror attacks actually serve to smoke out dissidents because we say politically incorrect things in public, it is more important that we conduct boycotts, tax avoidance and build alternative institutions without attracting attention from the authorities. All of the protesting of Tommy Robinson's imprisonment has simply proven that the UK "far-right" is impotent and riddled with informants. 70% of the UK hates him, and view Muslims as the victims of harassment by his supporters.

And in the aftermath of any terror attack, "city Strong" is memed to shame any shift to far-right opinion. Instead the security state grows, which is always turned against us. By contrast, when the police intercept an attack before it happens, that usually benefits us more.

Counter-example, Luca Traini and Breivik. In the case of the former, support for Lega actually increased. In the latter, the Progress Party has never recovered its support. The intercepted far-right attack in France just recently was also humiliating coming up upon the Imperial Team's sportsball victory.

Most terror attacks have been Sunni Islamist, far-right and far-left attacks are rarer. More terrorism by all sides (Black Nationalist, Chinese, Drug Cartel, Shia, Incel, Roma?) could be the shift that sours Westerners on multikult if the state appears impotent. Race riots are probably benefit us more in electoral terms, as it indicates a deeper breakdown in the state's power. No Islamist group in a Western country has ever been able to maintain the intensity of the Palestinian Intifada or the ANC People's war.

It's hard to tell definitively. It was clear that every time there was a major exploding Mohammad attack--in the US or in Europe--it redounded to Trump's benefit and Hillary's detriment in the polls. Those are short-term indicators though.

I'm specifically recalling the attack in Belgium, there was a Neo Nazi rally in front of the Parliament building a few days later. The government actually was aware the attack was going to happen. VB had marginal gains in the polls.

When Lee Rigby was beheaded, Tommy Robinson (then leading the EDL) was inciting riots, which he surprisingly wasn't arrested for. The fact he's still alive in prison leads me to suspect that MI5/MI6 uses him as an asset/honeypot, something that Robinson has alluded to in writing.

France has suffered the most attacks, but it didn't help Le Pen much at all. Terror attacks cause a "rally around the flag" effect, which is what "X Strong" means. Normies consider it rude/unpatriotic to attack the incumbent government before the mourning is over.

Now, of course leftists never attend us the same courtesy. The attacks in the UK caused the Cuckservatives to lose their majority because Corbyn attacked the police cuts.

Whatever success the travel ban has had, Trump can't benefit from it. Charlottesville gave the advantage in "terrorism" to the left, the Vegas and school shootings only confirmed it. Any future attacks will be seized upon by the left as the consequence of ignoring intelligence agencies and allies.

Wrt terrorism, polls exit polling regularly shows that those who are put "terrorism" as a top concern are way more likely to vote right than vote left. I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you think this will change in 2018/20?

IIRC, Steve Sailer memed the idea of "the Backlash" wrt how the establishment defuses populist anger at Muslim terrorism. I'm mentioning examples about how our people fall into this trap, which backfires on us.

I think the left is now benefitting from "terrorism" because it's coming via mass shooters and Charlottesville. I don't think pollsters will express this directly, unless it is a specific question about "does Drumpf embolden white supremeists?". It's bad news for us if "terrorism" converges with "gun control".

Even after two attacks in short sucession, the public was 2-1 against fear of going in public. Hollande also received a strong "rally around the flag" effect in a neighboring country. I don't think that "terrorism" as a political topic has that great of an impact in the long run, but "the backlash" does.

I don't think of myself as a typical Ashkenazi but I guess I am when it comes to guns. I don't own a gun...I wouldn't even want to touch a gun. Guns scare the hell out of me. That being said I can't really get worked up about the gun control debate. There are so many guns in circulation they are too out of control to start controlling at this point.

While I might be a typical Jew when it comes to guns I am not a typical non-gun owner when it comes to politics because I passionately voted for Trump.

There's a sharp urban/rural divide on guns, too. If you're urban white/Jew, guns are things black thugs carry around. Normal people don't need them. They're dangerous because there are a lot of unintended targets a bullet can hit. Cops are five minutes away.

In rural areas, normal people carry guns and the cops are half an hour away. There's no risk of accidentally hitting something other than a target.

Looks to mew like percent of armed population breaks down roughly like thisblacks 2%hispanics 4%asians .3%jews .2 %lib whites 5%enemy total 11.5%

white right 15%much worse than i would have guessed however.

I think the minorities have maybe one cheap gun and a handful of rounds on average the goodwhites have a few hunting riiffles

but the white right has several assault rifles and handguns each and thousands of rounds each and are much better trained. Also the good whites with guns are going to be in white right territory and will be conscripted or disarmed. the blacks and hispanics are not getting out of the cities and will use up their ammo on goodwhite urbanites and no ones going to resupply them.

and of course theres the army and law they are not fighting against whites in a civil war and the cathedral cant maintain the criminal terrorist frame for long in the land of iphone which is why moving to shut down internet soon as the frame breaks cops army heads home to defend family and end up on our side

that said i think white right should definitely work harder at getting ready for civil war because its coming soon, the left cant stop itself and whites are waking up and are not going o take much more. to say little of the economic issues as well